The stupid man's Ozy and Millie

[Ruedii-X]

<!--QuoteBegin-Octan+Dec 2 2004, 11:46 AM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (Octan @ Dec 2 2004, 11:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> I thought the biggest problem syndicates had with O&M was its complicated premise. It had nothing to do with satire. Ironically, Simpson's main submissions to synicates occurred early on in the strip's existence (or so I would gather) when it wasn't really complicated at all. Heck, it didn't even <i>have</i> a premise back then, just characters! You throw in stuff like Captain Locke and the Dragon Conspiracy, though, and then it gets messy. But it's still nothing like, say, "Kevin and Kell." (Heck, that was confusing right from the start!) So...I dunno.<br><br>One thing we can be sure of, though...if he can successfully create a comic that appeals to a mainstream (as in stupid) audience, then once it takes off it'll be a major hit. No doubt about it. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... /smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... /smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... /smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... /smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... /smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br> Kevin and Kell is just unaccesable by non-computer geeks. Trust me, it's more accessable for those of us who have been on the Internet since 1996.<br><br>You also have to read the entire first 3 years to know most of what is going on. This format was chosen, because the syndicates turned down the intial proposal, though.<br><br>On O&M it's a bit more complecated. Newspapers are reluctant to have "furry" cartoons that have any sociopolitical satire influence, as people get upset when they get pulled for censorship reasons. In fact, many internal memos about Calvin and Hobbes said that they would have pulled the strip if it weren't for the fact that the characters had "cute" appeal. And, like I said in an earlier post, it's not your typical things that are called sociopolitical satire. People are weird, or more likely enjoy their state of ignorant bliss.

[Ruedii-X]

<!--QuoteBegin-FoxChild+Sep 17 2004, 11:51 PM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (FoxChild @ Sep 17 2004, 11:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> Oh yeah, a while ago in fact. I pointed that out a bit in the current strips forumtoo. Take a look, and you'll notice that all the recent storylines have a lot less of a point to them in terms of final moral (even fake ones) and philosophy. Also, there haven't been any words that you could even question the meaning of. O&M use to have words sporadically thrown in that one might have to look up in order to fully comprehend the joke, or derive the meaning from the surounding words. Also, puns are far less prevolant. Type - A as compared to Teipay (i know thats spelled incorrectly, but you know the strip i'm speaking of, i'd say!)<br><br>Finally, the story lines seem to actually have more going on in them to catch your attention quickly, stuff thats more outrageous than the older stuff... like millie driving a truck full of mercury, as compared to trying to mug her mother for pocket money and failing.  its not a humungous change, ut at the same time... it really is... <!--emo&-_---><img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... /sleep.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sleep.gif' /><!--endemo--><br><br>I will point out that there still is the political subcommentary! actually, that may be considered political supercommentary, because it's displayed so far to the front, it's almost mist each time. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br>I think he should just be more subtile about the lessons, instead; That way the "stupid people" just don't notice them. After all, being blatent is what got Futuramma pulled from Fox.<br><br>BTW, is it just me or is that Aviatar a cross between the 4 major O&M characters.

[Muninn]

I'm fairly certain FoxChild's avatar is his furry persona. Mine, on the other hand, is a composite of the main characters.

[Ruedii-X]

<!--QuoteBegin-Jacob+Dec 3 2004, 02:46 PM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (Jacob @ Dec 3 2004, 02:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> I'm fairly certain FoxChild's avatar is his furry persona. Mine, on the other hand, is a composite of the main characters. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br> Well, the personality types are actually more common than you think, although they are taken to quite an extreme. I can see how someone would use the same representations. However, he won't admit to having a little Avery in him, maybe just not at that moment . . . He-He-He.<br><br>I know what my Avery side is like, not like Avery, but I think you guys saw enough of it before I got situatuated. I was a litlte tense, so my humor may have been a little strong, and we all know how that side comes out every once and a while when you're tense about jumping in on a new forum, particularly when the first people to reply weren't the best of the bunch, when it came to taking such humor lightly.<br><br>

[Muninn]

Why be tense at all? Why take a non-scathing response as a personal attack when admitting to be a little extreme from your corner at the time? Why label some of the best members here not the best of the bunch from a few days worth of observation?<br><br>Why do i get the feeling you'll needlessly seperate my questions into different posts?

[Steve the Pocket]

I dunno if mixing furry with satire is a major issue for syndicates. Remember how popular "Bloom County" was. Like FoxChild said, I think the issue for them is more with the complete lack of human characters. I don't know <i>why</i> they'd have a problem with that, but you'll notice there aren't any other all-furry comics in the newspaper. Unless "Animal Crackers" is still running.

[Burning Sheep Productions]

I can think of one called 'Beyond the Black Stump', but it's probably only in Australia considering you only see anthro-animals native to Australia in it.

[dcsimpson]

<!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> If a syndicate won't take Ozy and Millie, find a different syndicate.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br><br>Dude, there's only like FIVE of them.

[twigstar]

I wouldn't be wrong if I said you had already come to a decision would I? I love O&M(Obviously...Why would I be here otherwise?!) but I, and I'm sure we all realise that you are seriously trying to achieve success in your career - and that's why I say, go for it. I'm more than positive you will continue Oz and Mill in the same current style in your spare time, as you've made it clear it is an important outlet, so I see no probs.....People purposefully avoiding mainstream are the same as the ones conforming to it. <br><br>Here's to the success of your interesting career <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... /smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> <br><br>(If the above doesn't make sense, bear with me, I'm ill and highly fatigued. If I've repeated something somebody already said, I haven't read the whole topic.)<br><br> - Twigstar

[IRT_BMT_IND]

<!--QuoteBegin-dcsimpson+Jan 5 2005, 07:35 PM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (dcsimpson @ Jan 5 2005, 07:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> <!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> If a syndicate won't take Ozy and Millie, find a different syndicate.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br><br>Dude, there's only like FIVE of them. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br> I thought there were less than five. I can only name 3 North American ones off the top of my head (United Features, King Features, and TORSTAR)

[Sabre]

Even worse... There really needs to be more.

[Muninn]

<!--QuoteBegin-NJVee+Jan 5 2005, 08:34 PM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (NJVee @ Jan 5 2005, 08:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> Ozy and Millie, on the other hand, is much more <b>human</b>... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br> Wait, what? <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... /blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo--> <br><br>Another syndicate is Creators isn't it?

[Steve the Pocket]

<ul><li>Universal Press Syndicate</li><li>King Features Syndicate</li><li>United Feature Syndicate (aka United Media)</li><li>Creators Syndicate</li><li>Tribune Media Services</li><li>Washington Post Writers Group (they distribute "Opus")</li><li>Copley News Service</li></ul><br>So yeah, there aren't many. The biggest problem is King Features bought out, like, half of 'em at one point. I wonder if DCS tried that last one...

[IRT_BMT_IND]

<!--QuoteBegin-fenrir+Jan 8 2005, 12:38 PM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (fenrir @ Jan 8 2005, 12:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> I suppose this is rather relevent.<br>*clicky*<a href='http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp ... 1000746277' target='_blank'>fall of the orange cat?</a><br>Okay. garfield is pulled out of LA times. Maybe it's a sign of a new revolution? well. not really, unless the other papers follow suit. but it does make one hopeful that them papers would start looking for young, talented artists now, wouldn't it? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br> That Doesn't surprise me one bit, seeing how Garfield seems to draw from a library of about 6 jokes that have been repeated continually for the past 2 or so decades.

[Zaaphod]

<!--QuoteBegin-IRT_BMT_IND+Jan 8 2005, 06:20 PM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (IRT_BMT_IND @ Jan 8 2005, 06:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> That Doesn't surprise me one bit, seeing how Garfield seems to draw from a library of about 6 jokes that have been repeated continually for the past 2 or so decades. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br> Sounds right to me, as I seem to recall "Garfield" was actually funny about 20 years ago.<br>